The Unofficial "Ask a Muslim" Thread.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Amcon.

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

ok, why God willing?

It is a translation of the phrase "insha-Allah". Whenever a Muslim says that he will do anything in the future, he *must* say "insha-Allah", because only God controls the future. Nothing happens without His Will. Therefore, this is a manifestation of our understanding of perfect monotheism.

Glad to answer my own question!

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

Muslims claim, that a proof that the Koran was from God is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology, yet in 86:6-7 the Koran says, "man was created from ejected liquid- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs". This echoes the scientific error of Hippocrates who believed semen originates, from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys and finally out of the body. (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983, p. 317)

Question: Do you reject modern science and believe the Koran when it says sperm originates from the mid-gut section of a man's body.

I've written an article on this before. Please read it here:

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=2602

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, MuscleScience.

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

I have a question.

I know that Muslims are not suppose to drink alcohol, is there any exception for drinking alcohol for its reported health benefits if it is used in a healthy manner. For example moderate alcohol drinking is has been reported by some studies to have a significant impact in increasing ones HDL (good cholesterol)

Now say that this person does have a good diet and exercises but feels that they do not want to take medications to control their cholesterol, but rather have a glass of red whine or a beer to control it instead. Is that acceptable or is it still forbidden?

God says in the Quran:

"They ask you concerning intoxicants and gambling. Say: 'There is great sin in both, although they may have some benefit for men; but the sin is greater than the benefit." (Quran, 2:219)

So the answer is no. First, Islamic laws are based on generalities not exceptions. For example, not everyone who uses heroin gets addicted. There might be a handful of people who can do it in social settings. However, the general rule is that it causes addiction, and so it is forbidden. It is a measure that may restrict an individual's freedom but it benefits the entire community.

Second, there is the principle of "blocking the means". Oftentimes, something will be forbidden because it simply leads to sin, although it may not initially have been considered sinful. For example, it is not only forbidden to sin but also forbidden to go to *places* of sin. Therefore, not only is it forbidden to drink alcohol, but it is also forbidden to go to a bar. It is not only forbidden to dirty dance, it is also forbidden to go to the club in the first place. It is not only forbidden to fornicate with a woman, but it is forbidden to be in a room alone with her, etc.

Banning alcohol comes under all these rulings, i.e. generalities and "blocking the means". It is blocking the means because alcohol often leads to loss of inhibitions and causes people to sin.

Furthermore, alcohol loosens the mind and a Muslim is supposed to always be clear-headed so that he can worship God intently and in the right way, with full attention. Alcohol is often used to dull the soul's pain and a person's anguish, and Islam wants to use that pain and anguish to instead turn to God in worship, to cry to Him, to beg Him, implore Him, and the like, since we believe that this is the purpose of creation.

By the way, when I say "sin", I obviously mean from the Islamic perspective, and I don't mean any offense to those who do those things.

Hope that helps!

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[Big]

I just wanted to take a moment and thank the OP for this very informative thread, and remind our members to be as respectful in their posts as the op has been in his replies.

[amcon]

how do muslims see Jesus or isa?

why did muhammad premit christans to live under his protection for money? why not eliminate them?

two part question - wasnt the kissing and circling the metor a pagan ritual? the pilgrimage to mecca (even his last pilgrimage) why did Muhammad perform the pagan customs of the kissing and touching the metor?

what does sura 5:5 say?

i will say to you may only the truth leave our lips, not from man and his doing but from one and only one God.

thank you for your time

just a reminder

[amcon]

how many times was muhammad married? and were the ages of his women listed?

reminder part 2

(---this might b a little politicaly un correct

[BuffedGuy]

reminder part 2

(---this might b a little politicaly un correct

LOLLLLLLL

Ahh, I don't mind it. I consider Usama bin Ladin one of the dogs of hell-fire, as prophecized by Prophet Muhammad [s]. I found it (the hijacked icon) funny. But I hope it is of Bin Ladin and not of Arabs in general. (I assumed it was.)

I am going to answer your questions in a bit...don't worry. I am making sure I answer all of them, God Willing.

Take care.

[amcon]

i appricate your enegry!

[auslifta]

some interesting info, thanks for your effort.
Can you answer my question next please, god willing.

[gst528i]

A response to my question in post number #80 would be appriciated thank bro for keeping your cool even with some of the disrespectful posts.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Auslifta.

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

one more too sorry, the curved sword worn by muslims, isnt this the sword used to behead anyone that didnt convert to muslim? What is its importance as worn on a chain?

You are confusing Sikhs for Muslims. Sikhs wear a dagger on their body which they call the Kirpan. They wear it like Christians wear the cross.

Muslims do not wear a sword or dagger on their body. Rather, we disapprove of all symbols and icons as being a form of idolatry.

As for the idea that Muslims force people to convert to Islam, this is a myth. It is strictly forbidden in Islam to compel someone to convert to Islam. The Quran says:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion." (Quran, 2:256)

OK I'm about to answer the rest of your questions, God Willing...

[jimmyinkedup]

^^^ so what is the khanjar (small curved knife worn in bahrain UAE) ...no religous significance? Please excuse my spelling...an ex g/f years ago went to these countries and brought me one back that was silver handle and sheath.....at any rate i thought thats what auslifta was referring to....

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Jimmy.

^^^ so what is the khanjar (small curved knife worn in bahrain UAE) ...no religous significance? Please excuse my spelling...an ex g/f years ago went to these countries and brought me one back that was silver handle and sheath.....at any rate i thought thats what auslifta was referring to....

I've never heard of it, so I can't really be of any help. However, Professor Wikipedia says:

The khanjar (Arabic خنجر) is the traditional dagger of Oman. It is similar to the Yemeni jambiya.

The khanjar is curved, and sharpened on both edges. It is carried in a sheath decorated in silver, on a belt similarly decorated in silver filigree.

A khanjar appears on the flag of Oman, as part of the National Emblem of Oman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanjar

Bahrain is a small island nearby Oman, so I guess that is what your ex-girlfriend got.

It has nothing to do with religion, and I've never heard of it before. If they wear it for fashion-sake, then there is no objection from me, although doesn't look that fashionable to me, lol.

Hope that helps!

OK, GSTi's post is next, God-Willing.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[T_Own]

i've heard of something like that, not to try to answer for you, but a while ago, there was a kid in high school that wore one for his religion and supposedly wouldn't take it off, so since schools get up in arms over that stuff, he got expelled for bringing a knife into school, and since he claimed it was religious and was still pretty young, it was a huge story in the news

[jimmyinkedup]

It has nothing to do with religion, and I've never heard of it before. If they wear it for fashion-sake, then there is no objection from me, although doesn't look that fashionable to me, lol.

Hope that helps!

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.[/QUOTE]

Thank You for your response.

[BuffedGuy]

i've heard of something like that, not to try to answer for you, but a while ago, there was a kid in high school that wore one for his religion and supposedly wouldn't take it off, so since schools get up in arms over that stuff, he got expelled for bringing a knife into school, and since he claimed it was religious and was still pretty young, it was a huge story in the news

Yes, there have been many instances of Sikh students being expelled for wearing the kirpan. Here is one:

http://www.pluralism.org/news/articl...id=10928&print

Maybe a compromise could be reached? I don't know what their religion requires, but I wonder if they are allowed to wear a blunted ceremonial dagger instead of a sharpened one?

[Voice of Reason]

In all seriousness you being Muslim what would you do to these chicks if they did this to you BuffedGuy?



*tsk tsk

[gst528i]

The sword is used by Sikhs. It is of religious importance to them. They use it to protect anyone from being harmed weather it be sikhs or anyone innocent being harmed.
They do not use it to force.

[jimmyinkedup]

In all seriousness you being Muslim what would you do to these chicks if they did this to you BuffedGuy?

why??? u know its disrespectful ...so why?

[gst528i]

In all seriousness you being Muslim what would you do to these chicks if they did this to you BuffedGuy?

In all seriousness?

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Voice of Reason.

In all seriousness you being Muslim what would you do to these chicks if they did this to you BuffedGuy?

I understand a lot of people think that Muslims mistreat their wives, or somehow Islam teaches that. So these are two issues: (1) Do Muslims mistreat their wives more than people of other religions? And (2) Does Islam teach Muslim men to abuse their wives?

I'll answer the second question, first.

Does Islam teach a Muslim man to mistreat his wife?

The Quran says:

"Do not retain them (your wives) to harm them." (Quran, 2:231)

"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves that you might find peace and tranquility in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect." (Quran, 30:21)

"And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women."(Qur'an 2:226)

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, do not take away what you gave them, except if they are guilty of manifest sexual lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and God will bring about through it a great deal of good." (Al-Qur'an 4:19)

The Quran actually describes the man and wife as garments over each other, i.e. they protect each other from the elements, hide the faults of the other, etc. :

"They (your wives) are your garment and you are a garment for them." (Al-Qur'an 2:187)

Prophet Muhammad [s] said:

"The most perfect of the believers in their belief are those with the best manners, and the best of you are those who are best with their wives." (Riyadh as-Salihin, Chapter 34, Nr. 278, Ibn-Hanbal, No. 7396)

And Prophet Muhammad [s] advised his disciples:

“The best of you is the one who is best towards his wife.” (al-Tirmidhi, 3895; Ibn Maajah, 1977).

Prophet Muhammad [s] said:

"The people of the household of Muhammad have been surrounded by many women who are complaining about their husbands (abusing them). Those men are not among the best of you." (Sunan Abu Dawud: Book 11, Number 2141)

The Prophet's disciple narrated:

"I went to the Apostle of Allah and asked him: What do you command about our wives? He replied: "Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2139)

Prophet Muhammad [s] said:

“O people! It is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under God’s trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve [i.e. stranger men], as well as never to be unchaste."

And Prophet Muhammad [s] said:

"Fear God regarding women. Verily you have married them with the trust of God, and made their bodies lawful with the word of God. You have got (rights) over them, and they have got (rights) over you in respect of their food and clothing according to your means." (hajjat al-wada’)

And there are many other such quotes. I'll just add one last story, which is nice...it is the story of the Prophet's disciple, Umar:

Umar (RA) said that a man came to his house to complain about his wife. On reaching the door of his house, he hears 'Umar's wife shouting at him and reviling him.

Seeing this, he was about to go back, thinking that 'Umar himself was in the same position and, therefore, could hardly suggest any solution for his problem.

'Umar (RA) saw the man turn back, so he called him and enquired about the purpose of his visit. He said that he had come with a complaint against his wife, but turned back on seeing the Caliph in the same position.

'Umar (RA) told him that he tolerated the excesses of his wife for she had certain rights against him. He (Umar) said, "Is it not true that she prepares food for me, washes clothes for me and suckles my children, thus saving me the expense of employing a cook, a washerman and a nurse, though she is not legally obliged in any way to do any of these things? Besides, I enjoy peace of mind because of her and am kept away from indecent acts on account of her. I therefore tolerate all her excesses on account of these benefits. It is right that you should also adopt the same attitude."

(Afzular Rahman, p. 149)

I'm going to answer the first question (about Muslims being abusive to their wives) in a bit God-Willing...

Sorry for going out of order answering questions. I know I said I would answer gst's post next...I was working on it and then just saw this. I guess I shouldn't say which post is next if I'm not going to follow it.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, gst.

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

SO let me get this right. The first statement that i put in bold, Does that mean that non muslims go to hell fire.
The later statement makes me think what you are trying to say is that if presented by islam, and one were to reject it, than they would go to hell fire?

Non-Muslims can be divided into two groups: (1) those who have been properly exposed to Islam in its clear and pristine form, without any misconceptions, myths, lies, etc. (2) those who have either not been exposed to Islam at all or very little, or who have been exposed to a perverted version of Islam full of misconceptions, myths, lies, etc.

Yes, we believe that the former group will go to Hell-Fire. This is because they heard the Message of God and disobeyed it. God warned them of the Day, and they did not take heed of this warning, so it is now on their heads. The Quran says:

"Every time a group is cast therein [into Hell], its keeper will ask, 'Did no warner come to you?' They will say, 'Yes indeed; a warner did come to us, but we belied him and said: 'God never sent down anything; you are only in great error.’"

"And those who disbelieve are driven unto hell in troops till, when they reach it and the gates thereof are opened, and the warders thereof say unto them: 'Came there not unto you messengers of your own, reciting unto you the revelations of your Lord and warning you of the meeting of this Day?' The answer will be: 'Yes, verily!'. And so the word of punishment proved true against the disbelievers." (Quran, 39:71)

But I think that most Non-Muslims today constitute the second group, which is called Ahl al-Fatrah (People of the Interval). These are people who have not been properly warned, i.e. the message has not reached them and thus they are in the interval between messengers. To give an analogy, if you owe certain money to a hospital, and they keep mailing you medical bills. They send three or four reminders, warning that if you do not pay up by so-and-so date, then they will punish you by sending it to collections which comes up on your credit report. They can only send it to collections if the three letters reached you. So until they send those messages, they can't punish you. Likewise, God does not punish those who have never received the message, since they did not reject it--they simply never got it.

As for the one who has heard about the message--but in a corrupted fashion--then this person is in a worse position than the one who never heard of Islam to begin with. For example, a person who has heard that Islam allows terrorism (a misconception) would be less inclined to become Muslim than a person who has heard almost nothing about Islam. Therefore, such a person has more of a right to protest on the Day of Judgment. So God does not want to punish anyone who could protest like this, since He promised not to punish anyone without first warning them through a warner.

When you say reject do u mean say it is false or not practice.
If one person were to learn about alot of religions including islam (like me) and found answers to questions but raised other questions and fails to practice islam in the sense of going to mosque, prayer etc he or she would go to hell fire?

This would all be considered rejecting the message, i.e. not hearkening to what the message demands of you, which is to worship God alone in perfect monotheism. Not doing anything is effectively rejecting it. If a king tells his servant to bow down to him, and the servant does nothing at all, then this is effectively rejecting the command of the king. The King of Kings has commanded us to pray to Him five times a day, and therefore not doing that--for whatever reason--is rejecting the Command, regardless of your attitude towards Islam. So to answer your question: if a person learned about Islam in its pure and pristine form, and still did not hearken to it, then he would be held liable for this on the Day of Judgment.

Even if this person were to live his life without committing sins.

The greatest sin is commit shirk (polytheism). If one were to be a perfect monotheist, we believe that such a person would by definition be a Muslim. Conversely then, we believe that it is not possible to reject Islam and not sin. Rather, rejecting Islam entails sinning by default.

However, I understand what you mean: i.e. if you live a virtuous life, helping the poor, not stealing, not hurting others, etc etc...but even still, we believe that the greatest sin is shirk (polytheism), which is even above that of murder, rape, adultery, etc. God will forgive all of that if He wills, except shirk. If a person dies on polytheism, God will not forgive him, according to Islam.

Please keep in mind that Muslims consider atheists to be polytheists, but that is a whole other discussion.

Plus, not praying to God five times a day--and abstaining from other religious rites--is considered sinning by us.

One last note: no Muslim can claim that he is going to Paradise, and no Muslim can point to a Non-Muslim and say "you are going to hell". This is because not all people who say they are Muslim in this worldly life are going to Paradise...and not all Non-Muslims in this worldly life are going to hell, as they might be a part of Ahl al-Fatrah, or they may declare their belief with their dying breath. The books only close when the angel of death comes, and judgment is upon what a person dies upon. Once a person converts to Islam, all his previous sins are forgiven and he is considered to have a clean slate. So if a person declares his belief in Islam with his dying breath, then he dies as a sinless Muslim. And there are many cases in which this has happened.

Hope that answers your question.

In the Care of the Lord Most High,
-Saladin.

[gst528i]

thanks for that informations. I guess im going to hell. I appriciate your honest answers even if they are harsh lol..
I'm sorry but i have more questions ....
1) How does islam, allah and koran explain homosexual people. Also are do they automatically go to hell even if they are devout muslims? I am sure they wouldnt be considered devout since they are committing sin somehow by practicing homosexual activities.
2) Why is anal sex not allowed? Or was my gf tricking me ? Ofcourse she ate pork and did things that are sin. ( on a side note she finally gave up and let me in lol ..)
3) Why is it okay for muslims to marry first cousins? (correct me if i am wrong please i do not mean to offend. It;s just i know muslims that are married and by their account they are first cousin.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Matt.

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Ive read the bible a number of times (used to have alot of time to kill) and there is one thing that sticks in my mind. It tells the reader that there is only one God, we must pray to him and him alone, we must worship him and him alone. However i notice for example that catholics pray to Jesus, the apostles, and mainly the virgin Mary, their churches are full of statues, that they pray to. This is one of many reasons why i turned my back on the catholic church.

My question is this, are the teachings in the Quran Simlar?? And do you pray to God and God alone, if its a stupid question then im sorry..

I can't believe I missed this post. Your question is not stupid at all. Rather your question is excellent. May God grant you divine guidance!

You have hit the nail on its head. The *primary* reason why Prophet Muhammad [s] was sent after Prophet Jesus [as] was to rectify this matter. If you read the Quran, a lot of it is directed towards Christians, urging them to return to the path of pure monotheism.

The Quran commands Muslims in the Quran:

"Say: O People of the Scripture (Christians)! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto God alone).'" (Quran, 3:64)

The approach of the Quran towards the Christians is not "abandon your religion", but "come to a common word between us and you", and that common word is to worship God alone, and of course the greatest type of worship is prayer and invocation/supplication, as Prophet Muhammad [s] told us: "Invocation (prayer) is the essence of worship." Basically, the Quran tries to say that you have certain beliefs that we all agree on; let's use those principles to reach certain conclusions. Those conclusions are the same ones you made in your post:

there is only one God, we must pray to him and him alone, we must worship him and him alone.

And so Islam is saying if you agree with that, then is this not in contradiction to this here:

catholics pray to Jesus, the apostles, and mainly the virgin Mary, their churches are full of statues, that they pray to.

This is the entire concept of intercession. They believe that Jesus, the apostles, the virgin Mary, and their saints can and will intercede for them. In other words, they are too sinful to approach God directly, so they should go through an intermediary, i.e. pray to a saint who will then intercede before God. And they often give an analogy of a teacher and a student: "wouldn't your teacher be more likely to answer your request if you got his favorite teacher's assistant to ask for you?" That is what they say to justify their belief in intercession. I'll address this analogy shortly, but let's first see what the Quran says about praying to other than God and intercession.

The Quran says to God:

“You alone do we worship, and Your aid alone we seek.” (Quran, 1:5)

And the Muslim repeats this phrase at MINIMUM 17 times per day.

“And invoke not, besides God, any since that will neither profit you, nor hurt you, but if (in case) you did so, you shall certainly be one of the polytheistic wrongdoers! And if God should afflict you with harm, then there is none to remove it but He; and if He intends good to you there is none to repel His grace.” (Quran, 10:106-107)

“And your Lord says: ‘Call on Me, I will answer your (prayer).’” (Quran, 40:60)

“Verily those whom you call upon besides God are servants like you. Therefore, call upon them, and let them listen to your prayers, if you are (indeed) truthful! [i.e. it is useless]” (Quran, 7: 194)

“If you invoke them, they hear not your call; and if in case they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you….But you cannot make those hear who are in graves…!!!” (Quran, Chapter 35)

“Call upon those whom you imagine beside God! They have not an atom’s weight of power either in the heavens or in the earth, nor have they any share in either, nor does He need any of them as a helper.” (Quran, 34:22)

“Yet have they taken, besides Him, deities that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control Death nor Life nor Resurrection.” (Quran, 25:3)

"We sent down to you this scripture truthfully; you shall worship God, devoting your religion to Him alone! Absolutely the religion shall be devoted to God alone. Those who set up guardians besides Him say, 'We worship them only to bring us closer to God.' God will judge them regarding their disputes. God does not guide such liars, disbelievers." (Quran, 39:2-3)

And I could go on and on...one third of the Quran is JUST about the topic of God's one-ness...and the Quran discusses that not only do we believe that God is One without partner, without son or daughter, etc., but that we must also unify our worship. There is not only monotheism in the nature of God, but there is also monotheism in action, monotheism in worship. So we believe that calling on someone else as an intermediary before God is flouting monotheism in worship.

We reject the teacher and student analogy. We say: the analogy is not appropriate because the teacher is a creation of God and therefore has limitations. The teacher can only focus on one task at a time. Therefore, he can only call on one student at a time, and that is why he needs a teacher's assistant. The teacher can only take one request at a time and has limited time. The teacher needs a teacher's assistant because he cannot hear what all the students are saying, let alone know what they are thinking. So teacher delegates the task to the teacher's assistants, since he is not capable of handling such a big class himself. The teacher cannot grant all the requests to the students, i.e. there are a limited number of requests that can be accepted.

Glorified and Exalted be God above all that. He is in no need of a teacher's assistant. He is the All-Hearing and the All-knowing. Those limitations do not apply to Him, so He knows everyone's requests, and does not need to take only one at a time, nor does He need any help in that. God can accept all the requests, and there is not a limited number that He can accept. He is All-Capable and All-Powerful. Therefore the analogy cannot apply to Him. The very reasons a teacher hires a teacher's assistant do not apply to God.

Furthermore, God is More Merciful than the saints, prophets, and whoever else the people call. Therefore, God is more likely to respond to a request than His Servants. If a person is only calling upon a saint because he is too sinful to approach God, then is this not claiming that the saint is more merciful than God?

Anyways, you have the nail on its head, and the entire basis of Islam is what you are saying. The Muslims believe that the Catholics have become polytheists by making prayers to their saints and Mary [as].

As for Protestants, we agree with them in their debates with Catholics about intercession. But then we are dismayed because after all that debating, then it is said that Jesus is the intercessor before God. So the matter is the same and the only difference is in the number of intercessors before God.

The Bible says:

1 Tim 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

Hebrews 7:25. "He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through him, because he always lives to make intercession for them".

The Quran rejects this and says there are NO intercessors or mediators before God. The Quran says:

"You have no guardian or mediator beside Him (God). Will you not then remember?" (Quran, 32:4)

"What! Do they take for intercessors others besides God? Say: 'Even if they have no dominion over anything and no understanding (of their own)?' Say: Unto God belongs all intercession. His is the Sovereign of the heavens and the earth. And afterward unto Him you will be brought back." (Quran, 39:41-44)

We believe that Prophet Jesus [as] will return at the End of the Times and declare himself innocent of what has been ascribed to him, and that he will declare himself one of the absolute monotheists who would never call for intermediaries nor claim divinity. Then he will break the cross, and most Christians will convert to Islam. This is our belief about the End of Times.

God created us for the very purpose of us worshiping Him and calling on Him for help. There was NO other purpose to our creation but this. Therefore, it negates the purpose of our creation to be calling on intermediaries besides God. It takes away from our worship of Him. God loves to be called upon, so call on Him. He will answer you. There is no need to call on anyone else, and this will not make God answer your request faster or sooner; rather, it will block your request altogether, for God hates for you to call on other than Him.

Hope that answers your question. Please do feel free to ask follow-up questions or ask me privately if you want further help.

Again, I want to say that I understand that this post could be seen as critical of Christianity and therefore offensive. I also understand that Christians would have their own arguments and reasoning. It is the crux of the difference between Muslims and Christians, and there was really no way I could answer the question without stating our position, which is of course in opposition to that of the Christians.

In the Care of the Lord Most High,
-Saladin.

[rockinred]

Peace be to you also buffedguy..... I commend you for taking the time to write up long answers....wow!

the tetragrammaton is the four Hebrew letters used for God's name....in English it is YHWH or JHVH....many use the english pronunciation as Jehovah or Yahweh. the reason i ask this is because I knew muslims believe in the same God of the Jews, yet why a different name?

Also, do you believe their is a correlation between the term Elohim from the early Hebrew writers and Allah? I have done some study on this too.

[Voice of Reason]

why??? u know its disrespectful ...so why?

why?

I just want to ask a simple question I'm not looking for some deep answer made from ancient times, but of course he busted out his Qur’an cliff notes handbook on me.

I know it's disrespectful, I wanted to know on what level tho, like what would he personally do? ex. beat up, kill, or just be really embarrassed. You get me now?

[FallenWyvern]

You skipped mine.

[Dinosaur]

why?

I just want to ask a simple question I'm not looking for some deep answer made from ancient times, but of course he busted out his Qur’an cliff notes handbook on me.

I know it's disrespectful, I wanted to know on what level tho, like what would he personally do? ex. beat up, kill, or just be really embarrassed. You get me now?

you just proved that your disrespectful.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Voice of Reason.

why?

I just want to ask a simple question I'm not looking for some deep answer made from ancient times, but of course he busted out his Qur’an cliff notes handbook on me.

I know it's disrespectful, I wanted to know on what level tho, like what would he personally do? ex. beat up, kill, or just be really embarrassed. You get me now?

It's just that I cannot possibly see myself in that situation, or even comprehend how that could happen. I just found the video to be weird and random, that's all. As for beating up and killing women, then no, I wouldn't do that ever, in any situation.

May God unite our hearts upon the Straight Path.

You skipped mine.

I'm going to get to it, God-Willing. I have a few left, including yours. Sorry for the delay.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[BuffedGuy]

I just wanted to take a moment and thank the OP for this very informative thread, and remind our members to be as respectful in their posts as the op has been in his replies.

Thanks a lot, Big. I really appreciate it.

[BuffedGuy]

Fallen, I'm answering your question next, God-Willing. I just realized it was all the way on the first page...

[Voice of Reason]

you just proved that your disrespectful.

stfu i'm not disrespectful.

[Dinosaur]

stfu i'm not disrespectful.

you need to grow up man you are taking this way to deap and personal iam not ganna even go down to your level.

[Voice of Reason]

I was kidding with you bro don't you see the hypocrisy in telling someone to "STFU im not disrespectful."

[Dinosaur]

k j s

[Dinosaur]

I was kidding with you bro don't you see the hypocrisy in telling someone to "STFU im not disrespectful."

peace to you

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Fallen.

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

What foreign policy specifically does America need to change?

It is impossible to understand what must be done, without first discussing what *has* been done. Let me explain why there is so much anger in the Muslim world...It would take a HUGE book to mention all the things America--and the West in general--has done to the Muslim world. There are over 50 Muslim countries, and America has done these things in almost all of them. However, I will just pick one of them: Iraq. Understand though that although what the West did to Iraq would be enough to explain the hatred in the Muslim world, know that this is just one country and there are similar doings in the rest of the Muslim world, which together gives a synergistic effect to the hatred in the Muslim world.

The pathetic situation of the Muslim world today is only a very recent phenomenon. The garbage condition that Iraq is in today was not the way it was in the 1800s or before that. Rather, Baghdad was even at one point in time the jewel of the Muslim world, a center of culture, learning, and the arts. Up until World War I, Iraq was part of the great Ottoman Empire. The Muslims had a Caliph, a single leader of the Muslim world; true, it was a largely symbolic position, but it united the Muslim world and it was a sense of pride, and it was also a part of our religion to remain united upon a Caliph.

Then World War I occurred. Keep in mind that the Muslim world still has the Ottoman Empire (and honor). The Ottoman leader Abdul Hamid II appoints Husayn ibn Ali to be the local ameer (kind of like governor) of the Arab heartland. The British send their spy, TE Lawrence, to incite the Arabs against the Ottomans. The British Sir Henry McMahon enters into talks with Husayn, the Arab governor of the Ottoman province. The Husayn-McMahon correspondence takes place, where the British *promise* to establish an *independent* Arab Caliphate in the lands of the Arabs, in exchange for the support of these Arabs against the Ottomans. Iraq and Syria (including Palestine) was a part of this agreement, all to be united under a single independent Arab state/caliphate. McMahon pledged:

"Great Britain is prepared to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying within the frontiers proposed by the Sharif of Mecca." (Sir Henry McMahon to Sharif Husayn, October 24th, 1915)

Here is what one history book says:

"In addition to agreeing to recognize an independent Arab state after the war, Britain promised to provide Husayn with supplies, weapons, and funds for his revolt against the Ottomans and to recognize an Arab caliphate should one be proclaimed. Husayn, in turn, committed himself to an all out armed uprising and to a denunciation of the Ottoman regime..." (A History of the Modern Middle East, by William Cleveland, p. 157)

Of course the British never kept their word. At the same time that they promised the Arabs their freedom and their own states under an Arab Caliph, they were hammering out agreements with the other Great Powers on how to divide up the Middle East into "spheres of influence", i.e. colonial states. As one scholar called it "expansionist bookings in advance." They made the Siykes Picot Agreement amongst themselves, carving out the Middle East into small states ruled by the British and French.

The Caliphate is thus destroyed by the West, and through treachery, they destroyed the freedom of the Muslim world, and carved out the Middle East into random states, lines which they drew up themselves. That was the death blow to the Muslim world, one we've never recovered from. For example, Iraq itself has never been a country like it is today. Either an idiot (or a very clever person) decided to pack the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds into one country.

The Westerners made sure that no Arab country would ever be large enough to pose a threat. That is why they created the state of Kuwait: to land-lock Iraq. The land of Kuwait was given to the corrupt puppet government known as the Saba family, basically a bunch of mafia like goons. The Westerners expanded the borders of Kuwait into Iraqi territory, in order to block Iraq's access to water and land-lock it. I think I am not being clear, so let me reiterate: the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait (i.e. Saddam invading Kuwait) was a direct result of the decision of the Great Powers to give land that had always been a part of Iraqi provinces to the Kuwaitis.

So the Muslim world including Iraq is then ruled either directly by the Western nations or through "Vichy" puppet governments. Flash-forward to the year 1950's: public discontent is growing against the puppet government (the Hashimite MONARCHY), who are prostituting Iraq to the West. But the West is crushing democracy in the region, by ensuring that the strong-handed despotic monarchy stays in power. Most of Iraq's natural resources (OIL) goes to the West, who allow the puppet government leaders to live lavishly while poverty and despair grow amongst the Iraqi masses.

Finally, in the late 1950's, the popular leader Abd al-Kareem Qasim--with the support and blessing of the people--overthrows the puppet government. Ahhh, democracy achieved! Iraq kicks out the British soldiers and military officers in their land. Abd al-Kareem Qasim dissolves the monarchy and declares Iraq a republic! He nationalizes 98% of the country's oil, thereby blocking the rape of the country's resources. Keep in mind that Qasim's father was a farmer. Qasim felt for the people, and passed a bunch of legislation to give power back to the people, and expand the middle class.

Qasim's government creates a CONSTITUTION proclaiming the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law and granting htem freedom without regard to race, nationality, language, or RELIGION. The government passed laws to protect the rights of women and better their condition. The government freed political prisoners and reached out to the Kurds, granting them amnesty for rebelling against the Iraqi government.

Things are looking good...

Then America enters the picture.

In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein, a part of the Ba'ath Party. Saddam stands no chance...Qasim is too popular.

Enter the CIA.

In 1963, the CIA orchestrates a SUCCESSFUL assassination and coup of Qasim, and puts Saddam's party into power. The CIA then provides the Ba'ath party with the names of all of Qasim's former supporters and activists, and thousands of these people are killed in a rampage of mass murder carried out thanks to the CIA and its bed buddy, the Ba'ath party (Saddam's party).

America ensures that the Ba'ath party stays in power, and these years are extremely brutal for the Iraqi people. All public dissent is crushed. The Ba'ath party jails thousands, closes mosques (the Ba'ath party is anti-religion), and persecutes its own people.

Meanwhile, in Iran, the United States has installed another puppet government, installing the Shah as the leader of the Iranian people. (I am going to be brief, since this would take forever to describe why Iranians are angry at America.) America's puppet leader of Iran is overthrown in the Iranian Revolution. Khomeini comes to power.

The Kurds of Iraq are still in a state of rebellion. (Remember: they had joined the government of Qasim, since Qasim had promised equality to all races. But the Ba'ath regime--installed by the US--were Arab nationalists [a fancy word for racists] and wanted nothing to do with the Kurds.) So the Kurds fled to the outskirts of Iraq and were waging a rebellion. The Iranian puppet government of the Shah had closed its borders to Kurds, but the Khomeini government opened them and thereby granted the Kurds refuge and a base to launch their rebellion.

The United States is worried about the loose canon Iran under Khomeini. The US encourages Iraq to invade Iran. The Iran-Iraq War begins, perhaps one of the bloodiest wars of all time, and lasts many long years. It would have been a quick victory for Iraq, had it not been for the Iranian zeal, along with.......US military aid. This is the Iran-Contra Affair. While publicly supporting Iraq, the US is secretly funneling weapons to Iran.

But why on earth would America give military aid to both countries? "Let them destroy each other." So long as the Iranians and Iraqis have parity of arms, they will keep fighting each other, neither will ever succeed, and America can ensure that neither country can ever extend its hegemony in the Middle East.

As a consequence of this American duplicity, up to 1.5 million Muslims die in the Iran-Iraq War.

Iraq had a much superior army to Iran, and is surprised that the Iranians are holding out so well (not knowing that America is giving them aid). All of Iraq's resources are being drained, and Iraq is forced to take out extensive loans from various countries. Of those countries is Kuwait.

As the war ends, Iraq is wasted and now burdened with a huge debt load. Worse yet, the port of Basra is destroyed by Iran. Now Iraq is not 99% land-locked, but 100% land-locked, and Iraq requests Kuwait to allow it access to the water. Kuwait refuses. Iraq protests, arguing that Iraq was waging a war against Iran for all Arabs. (Kuwait, as a puppet government of America, was also being labeled as such by Khomeini. Therefore, Kuwait had a stake in Iraq's victory, and hence the loans to Iraq.)

Iraq owes billions of dollars to Kuwait. Iraq requests Kuwait to forgive the loans, arguing that the war was fought for Kuwait as well, and Iraq is the one that dealt with the devestation, not Kuwait. Kuwait refuses. Worse yet, Kuwait violates the oil quota system, to which it had pledged to. Kuwait starts selling more oil, thereby declaring an economic war on Iraq's already shambled economy. Iraq decides that (1) not allowing it access to water, (2) not forgiving any of its debt for a war fought on behalf of Kuwait, and (3) declaring an economic war on Iraq, was enough to annex and take back the land that was initially Iraq's to begin with.

Again, from the same book I quoted earlier:

"The most enduring disagreement [between Iraq and Kuwait] was caused by Iraq's refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the border dividing the two states. When British officials defined the Iraq-Kuwait border in 1923, they gave Kuwait more territory in the north than the Kuwaiti rulers traditionally controlled. This was not a reward to Kuwait but rather a deliberate British attempt to restrict Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf. By granting 36 miles of coastline, all of which was poorly suited to the development of modern port facilities, Britain intended to prevent the country from becoming a major Gulf naval power." (William Cleveland, p. 463)

Keep in mind that the Rumeila oil field was in that territory, the same oil that Kuwait was using to go over the OPEC quotas, oil that should be used by Iraq to pay off its debts to kuwait. Incensed, the Iraqis were considering declaring war with Kuwait. But being a puppet of America, Saddam decided to consult America first.

Saddam Hussein had an emergency meeting with April Glaspie, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, on July 25th of 1990, airing his concerns. April Glaspie informed Saddam that the United States had no interest in border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait. Iraq then invaded Kuwait.

Meanwhile, on the boob tube, all American citizens hear is that Saddam invaded the innocent country of Kuwait and America was coming to the rescue of an oppressed country.

The Americans told Saddam that they don't care about border disputes, and yet now invade Iraq on the basis of said border dispute? Absurd!

Then began the pulverization of Iraq, bombing it to the stone ages. If that was not enough, they didn't remove Saddam, but instead decided to create an embargo against the Iraqi people. The sanctions ALONE resulted in the death of over half a MILLION Iraqi children. Those are very conservative numbers, as published in the New York Times. Madeleine Albright was asked if she thought that half a million dead Iraqi children was worth it, to which she replied: "The price is worth it." (60 minutes)

Sanctions are inhumane, as they only punish the population and just make the regime in power more powerful.

The reality is that MILLIONS have died in Iraq due to the multiple wars waged against it, and the crushing sanctions placed against it. Then Bush invades Iraq again on the pretense of weapons of mass destruction; as the joke goes in Washington: "we KNOW he has WMDs; we still have the receipts!" Who gave Saddam the weapons? Who supplied Saddam and ensured he'd stay in power? The US of A. Now the Iraqis are being punished for that. What circular logic.

They put Saddam in power, then they punish the Iraqis for that. They talk about democracy, yet they are the ones who overthrew it. They talk about WMDs, yet they are the ones who supplied them. They talk about human rights, yet they are the ones who violate them.

As God says in the Quran:

"When it is said to them: 'Make not mischief on the earth,' they say: 'Why, we are peace-makers only.' Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not." (Quran, 2:11-12)

This leads us up to what *has* been done, which will give us an idea on what *must* be done, or rather, what should *not* be done.

More to come, God-Willing...

[Tock]

What about freedom of religion, and constitutional rights for individual citizens?

Some hard-core Christian Fundamentalists in the US are of the opinion that government should conform to the Bible's rules.

Here's an introduction to the worst case scenario:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...onstructionism

But, it used to be that Christians killed anyone thought to be a witch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trial
or an infidel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition
and lots of Christians would like to put gay people to death, too:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Fortunately, most of the Blue Laws have been ruled unconstitutional in the USA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

I like the idea of a planet where people are free to worship as they like (or to not worship at all) without interference from the government.
I also like the idea that the government should not take tax money to pay the expenses of churches. It seems to me that if people want the Catholic Church or the Methodist Church or the Mormon Church (etc) to have lots of money, that money should come from individual members of that religious organization, and not from tax money, without exception.
And, laws passed by the government should have to fill a civil need, and not be enforced to suit the doctrine of any religion.

The Christian Church has a long and horror-filled history of using government power for its own purposes (usually to enforce compliance with its rules, and to get more $$$ for itself).
It wasn't until 1936 that the US Supreme Court ruled that individual states of the USA could not tax property to support an official state church. It wasn't until 1967 that the US Supreme Court ruled that the government could not prohibit inter-racial marriages. It wasn't until 2003 that the US Supreme Court confirmed that the government could not prohibit gay sex.

In all of those situations, fundamentalist Christians in the US sought to use the government to enforce its religious rules, and bitterly fought efforts to allow Americans the right to live free from strict religious laws.

How does Islam compare? Would Islamic religious organizations seek to use government influence the way Christian organizations have in the past, where they put religious slogans on currency (In God We Trust), attempt to shut down businesses on Sunday to conform with the Commandment, "Thou shalt keep the sabbath day holy," and claim that gay people are inherently sinful, evil, and reviled by God, and therefore should not be allowed to marry each other?

In short, would Islam be happier defender of religious civil liberties than Christianity has been?

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/freedom.htm

[BuffedGuy]

And again, I am not saying that everything about America is evil. I am *just* saying that its foreign policy is. And I am talking about its current foreign policy, not the one it was FOUNDED upon. The Founding Fathers had an excellent ideal for foreign policy, and I think that America should return to that.

There are many great things about America, and if someone asks me to say what I think is great about America--and what the Muslims can learn from America--I am more than willing to dedicate a post to that.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[Voice of Reason]

Why do Muslims get so pissed over a comics controversial image of the Prophet Mohammed?

...